Drinking Water Treatment for Small Communities a Focus on EPA's

Home , Water treatment

United States Office of Research and EPA/640/K-94/003 Environmental Protection Development May 1994 Agency Washington, DC 20460 Drinking Water Treatment for Small Communities

A Focus on EPA’s Research

1 EPA’s Office of Research and Development

The Office of Research and Development (ORD) conducts an integrated program of scientific research and development on the sources, transport and fate processes, monitoring, control, and assessment of risk and effects of environmental pollutants. These activities are implemented through its headquarters offices, technical support offices, and twelve research laboratories distributed across the country. The research focuses on key scientific and technical issues to generate knowledge supporting sound decisions today, and to anticipate the complex challenges of tomorrow. With a strong, forward-looking research program, less expensive more effective solutions can be pursued and irreversible damage to the environment can be prevented.

2 Drinking Water Treatment for Small Communities

A Focus on EPA’s Research

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) projects that new drinking water standards will help prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of disease each year and will provide increased health protection for all Americans served by public water systems. The new standards include requirements for increased water utility monitoring of water quality to ensure its safety. Where contaminants are present at levels exceeding the standards, utilities will need to provide treatment. Many utilities will need to upgrade existing treatment facilities or design new ones, and tens of thousands of small systems (3,300 or less population served) may find it difficult to meet the new requirements. To address these needs, EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) is working with industry, states, and communities to adapt alternative treatment technologies to smaller scale to ensure that regulatory requirements can be met cost-effectively and realistically by even the smallest jurisdiction. This effort focuses on treatment technologies for small systems, including prefabricated central treatment systems (package plants) and home treatment units, to reduce biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants to acceptable levels in water supplies. Small communities throughout the nation with differing raw water qualities are participating in ORD’s studies to test and evaluate treatment technologies. Results to date indicate that small systems can upgrade drinking water quality at a reasonable cost.

3 Water Use The majority of our nation’s Americans use about 12 water suppliers are small systems billion gallons per day in public serving 25 to 3,300 people. Eighty- water supplies. This demand is filled seven percent of community water by the nation’s abundant fresh water systems serve only 11 percent of the resources in over 2 million miles of community system population, and streams, 30 million acres of lakes two thirds of all systems serve and reservoirs, and huge under- communities of fewer than 500 ground aquifers (subsurface geologic people. Small and very small formations that store water). About community water systems serve 50 percent of the population receives fewer than 26 million of approxi- drinking water from surface water mately 233 million customers in the supplies and 50 percent from ground country. water sources. Most large cities use Many small systems will find surface water as their drinking water it difficult to comply with new source, but small towns or commu- environmental regulations because nities with populations of less than they cannot afford the necessary 3,300 most often use ground water. equipment or staff for treatment. As Currently, about 50 percent of additional contaminants are ground water supplies are disin- identified in drinking water and fected. However, with new regula- standards are developed, the tions, disinfection of all ground complexity of managing water waters will be required to inactivate systems, especially for small organisms or microbial contami- systems, will increase greatly. nants, called pathogens, that produce disease. About 13 million people (5 percent of the population) draw Sources of Contamination water from private wells, which are Treating water supplies to Community water not federally regulated under the remove health-threatening contami- systems. Safe Drinking Water Act . nants is costly. Some pollutants are

Number of Systems = 59,266 Population Served = 232,562,000 Medium, Large, & Very Small & Medium, Large, & Very Large Small Very Large 13% 11% 89% Very Small & Small 87%

System Size and Population Served: Very small (25-500): Small (501-3,300); Medium (3,301-10,000); Large (10,001-100,000); Very Large (More than 100,000)

4 harmful in small amounts, and can Unless managed properly, all of these be difficult to remove once they sources have the potential to pollute. have contaminated a water supply. Many occur naturally in the earth’s Regulations crust (geological), such as arsenic, Concern about the quality of fluoride, and radionuclides. Other the nation’s drinking water supplies potential sources of contamination prompted the Safe Drinking Water include failures in septic tanks, Act legislation in 1974. The EPA is sewer systems and municipal authorized to design national landfills; pesticides and fertilizers standards that are the primary spread on cropland and lawns; responsibility of the states to enforce. highway salt; and industrial and The Safe Drinking Water Act has had municipal wastewater facilities that a significant effect on improvements discharge into surface waters. in both water quality and water Poorly constructed or improperly supply management. Increasing Examples of abandoned wells provide pathways concerns with toxins in the drinking health risks from for contaminants to enter aquifers. water led Congress to amend the the tap.

Contaminants Health Effects Sources

Microbiological Acute gastrointestinal Human and animal fecal illness, dysentery, hepatitis, matter typhoid fever, cholera, giardiasis, cryptosporidiosis, etc.

Arsenic Dermal and nervous system Geological toxicity

Lead Central and pheripheral Leaches from lead pipes nervous system damage; kidney and lead-based solder, effects; highly toxic to infants pipe joints and pregnant women

Nitrate Methemoglobinemia (“blue Fertilizer, sewage, feed baby syndrome”) lots

Fluoride Skeletal damage, dental Geological fluorosis

Pesticides and Nervous system toxicity, Farming, horticultural herbicides cancer risk practices

Trihalomethanes Cancer risk Treatment by-product

Radionuclides Cancer Geological

5 original Act in 1986, making it water if necessary to assure that the stricter and more inclusive. concentration of each contaminant remains below the acceptable levels National Drinking Water established by EPA. Standards Monitoring requirements The Safe Drinking Water Act differ according to whether the has two parts. First, EPA is to system is a community or non- establish National Primary Drinking community supply. Community and Water Regulations for drinking regional water supplies are devel- water quality. Generally these oped, owned and operated by standards are numerical criteria for various government agencies or each contaminant that may be found private groups. Other commercial in a drinking water supply and that concerns, such as trailer parks or may have an adverse effect on hospitals often supply water as an health. Drinking water standards ancillary service. These suppliers establish maximum contaminant must meet some or all of the federal levels, the highest allowable drinking water regulations. concentration of a contaminant in drinking water. The maximum New Requirements contaminant levels are determined The 1986 Amendments through risk assessment procedures greatly extended federal, state and that take into consideration health local responsibilities for protection effects, treatment technologies, of community water supplies. Water sampling techniques, monitoring utilities must provide the necessary requirements, and appropriate facilities, personnel, and operating A community wa- management practices. Maximum vigilance to assure delivery of an ter supplier is a contaminant levels are usually adequate supply of safe water that utility that pro- expressed as milligrams per liter consistently meets the requirements vides drinking wa- (mg/L), which are equivalent to parts of the National Primary Drinking ter to 25 or more per million, since one liter of a Water Regulations. In addition, they people. There are substance contains one million have various decision-making just under 60,000 milligrams. responsibilities beyond direct community water Under certain conditions, EPA operation and maintenance. They are suppliers, but only may designate that a treatment subject to increased public scrutiny about 250 of technique be used in place of a since the public must be notified of these suppliers maximum contaminant level. The each drinking water violation, and serve populations Surface Water Treatment and Lead they are subject to more frequent and of 100,000 or and Copper Rules require a treatment larger fines for violations. more. Non-com- technique instead of a maximum Drinking water standards munity drinking contaminant level. must be met in the near future for water suppliers — 108 contaminants, which include motels, resorts, biological contaminants, pathogenic restaurants and Monitoring Supplies bacteria, viruses, protozoa, etc.; lead; similar establish- The second part of the Act radionuclides; by-products of ments, number pertains to water suppliers. The disinfection; organic chemicals; and about 140,000 operators of the 200,000 public nitrates and other inorganic and serve non- water systems in the country will chemicals. Monitoring will also be residential users. monitor the quality of the water required for a number of unregulated delivered to consumers and treat that parameters. Monitoring requirements

6 Protection Programs- The Safe Drinking Water Act provides several programs that establish environmental safeguards to prevent contaminants from reaching water sources. •To assess and protect ground water sources: Wellhead Protection Program - identifies all potential contamination sources within an area surrounding a community water supply well. Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration Program - prescribes a comprehensive land management plan that can be used to eliminate activities that have an adverse impact on public health and ground water within the area surrounding a community supply well. •To protect surface water supplies: Watershed Control Program - restricts activities that have the potential to contaminate surface waters. The goal of the program is to preserve and improve raw water quality by identify- ing and controlling contamination sources in the watershed.

for each contaminant are quite Research Strategy specific, and water systems must As a result of amendments to follow a prescribed schedule and the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA procedure for contaminant sampling estimates that more than 6,000 water Tub from an old and analysis. However, states have systems will have to install water washing machine the authority to waive monitoring treatment to meet the proposed was used to filter requirements for many contami- standards for organics and large particles from nants if those substances have never inorganics, 11,000 systems will be a very small been used in an area or if water affected by filtration requirements, community drinking systems are not vulnerable to and 43,000 systems must address water supply. The Safe Drinking Water contamination by the substance. corrosion control alternatives. Act, as Under the Safe Drinking reauthorized, sets Water Act, water utilities, EPA, and requirements for Best Available Technology states have enormous responsibilities. filtration that cannot The regulations designate the The agenda for EPA to establish, be met with such best available technology for each states to regulate, and utilities to homemade devices. contaminant exceeding standards to bring drinking water systems into compliance. The best available technologies are intended to assist EPA in establishing maximum contaminant levels by taking into consideration the various treatment technologies available, their cost and efficiency for removing contaminants from water, and to aid water utilities in selecting appropriate treatment methods to meet drinking water standards. The ORD provides supporting information on performance and cost of treatment technologies for maximum contaminant level or rule development.

7 Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory Much of EPA’s drinking water research is conducted by ORD’s Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration at the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory’s Drinking Water Research Division in Cincinnati, Ohio. This staff has provided leadership in drinking water research for several decades. Their work in microbiological treatment and in inorganics and organics control has contributed significantly to advancing the state of the science in these areas. Through a multidisciplinary program, integrating chemistry, engineering, microbiology, and economics, drinking water research is conducted to establish practices for the control and removal of contaminants and for prevention of water quality deterioration during storage and distribution. This research is directed toward improving chemical removal methodologies, controlling disinfection by-products, evaluating disinfection processes, and providing technical assistance to states and municipalities in adopting and implementing drinking water standards. In-house pilot plant treatment facilities aid the testing and evaluation of new and emerging technologies for potential real-world application. This Laboratory, in support of EPA’s National Water Program, is concentrating much of its effort exploring new or improved and more affordable technologies for small communities.

meet a multitude of regulatory may provide solutions to most small requirements will demand solutions community water quality problems. to many new and complex problems.

Package Plant Systems Small Systems The most significant require- To bring small community ments for small systems are low systems into compliance will construction and operating costs, necessitate some new thinking and simple operation, adaptability to flexibility in terms of technology part-time operations, and low applications and institutional maintenance. To meet these needs, arrangements. Treating 50,000 the less costly package plant systems gallons per day is not simply a present an attractive alternative to matter of downsizing to one percent small custom designed central of a 5-million-gallon per day plant. treatment systems. The difference Operator ability, capital resources, between package plants and custom and extremes in water quality must designed plants is that package be taken into account. plants arrive on site virtually ready The treatment needs of small to operate. utilities often are not clear. Pilot Most of the technologies used testing programs to evaluate in custom designed treatment plants treatment processes and operations for community water systems can be on a small scale contribute signifi- used in package plants and home cantly to final system design and treatment units. These technologies success. The innovative application are applied to reduce levels of of proven techniques and technolo- organic contaminants and control gies in individual plants and units turbidity, fluoride, iron, radium,

8 arsenic, nitrate, microorganisms and many other contaminants. Aesthetic Package Treatmant Plants parameters such as taste, odor, or Package plants are treatment units that are assembled color also can be improved. in a factory, mounted on a skid, and transported to the Researchers in ORD are treatment site, or alternatively, transported as compo- working to provide an analysis of nent units to the site and then assembled. They are package plant treatment systems to currently most widely used to treat surface water determine performance, costs, supplies for removal of turbidity, color, and microbes reliability, and capability. A great with filtration processes. However, most treatment tech- deal of this effort is focused on nologies are adaptable to package plant design and encouraging industry to design and configuration. make prefabricated small treatment Design criteria and operating and maintenance re- plants suitable to the sizes and quirements can vary widely. Thus, there is a need to de- various treatment needs of small velop reliable data and knowledge of package plant sys- communities. Prefabrication means tems to enable development of appropriate guidance on lower on-site construction costs. To selection criteria. complete this work, ORD will The ORD is working with plant manufacturers to create and demonstrate hybrid test different package plants at their Test and Evaluation package plant designs and configu- (T & E) Facility, located in Cincinnati, Ohio. The plants rations. to be tested focus on disinfection and removal of organic material to improve the disinfection process, since this is the area of greatest concern and subject of the pending Disinfection/Disinfection By-Product and Operation and Maintenance Surface Water Treatment Rules. In addition, alternative Through a cooperative effort disinfectants will be tested via a nearly full-scale pipe loop system to evaluate water quality as it is delivered to with the American Water Works the tap through the distribution system. Association (AWWA), ORD has been examining the broad application and use of package plants Ultrafiltration membrane package plant undergoing tests at across the country. This study, EPA’s Test & Evaluation Facility in Cincinnati, OH.

9 Point of Use Treatment Unit Point of Entry Treatment Units

Home Treatment Units Home treatment units can be an alternative to centralized treatment technology for individual and small systems. Such systems have been widely adapted to treating water from a single faucet at the point of use or for the entire house at the point of entry. Their off the shelf availability makes them attractive alternatives. Very small systems may find point of entry units less costly to buy and easier to install and maintain than a custom designed or package plant. For example, a responsible party at a Superfund site in Pennsylvania opted to install 15 point of entry units to remove trichloroethylene at individual homes rather than install a distribution system connecting each home to another community’s network several miles away. The long- term future cost of monitoring, maintenance, and sampling was preferable to the high one-time capital cost of installing a distribution system. Point of entry treatment is acceptable as an available technology for complying with drinking water regulations under certain circumstances. Until recently, point of use treatment units were acceptable only for interim measures, such as a condition for obtaining a variance or ex- emption to avoid reasonable risk to health before full compliance can be achieved. An EPA research study is evaluating point of use units to reduce naturally occurring ground water fluoride to acceptable levels for a community of 40. It is expected that these units may be acceptable for compliance in some communities in the future. Neither point of use nor point of entry is designated as a best available technology because of the difficulty in monitoring the reliability of treatment performance and controlling performance in a manner comparable to central treatment. All public water supplies must monitor and ensure the quality of water treatment, whether they provide central treatment or decentral- ized treatment through point of use/point of entry units. State approval is required for use of such units. Both systems are available from a large number of manufacturers and most treatment technologies can be adapted to home devices. In certain situations, point of use/point of entry units can be cost-effective solutions when a very small community cannot afford central treatment for removal of a contaminant, such as an organic chemical or fluoride. For example, with state approval, several small communities (25 to 200 people) in Arizona installed home systems using activated alumina to remove fluoride. A manufacturing/engineering company on contract with one community maintains all the systems.

10 which evaluated water treatment Looking Ahead filtration procedures at 48 small systems, found that, in addition to a Results of the recent ORD/AWWA evaluation of lack of proven technology, the package plants identified several technical issues that success or failure of a plant is often require further investigation for resolution. dependent on its financial status. • As in systems of all sizes, the conflicting objectives If a community fails to between minimization of disinfectant by-product recognize the need for training and formation and maximization of water quality (through certification for operators in effective microbe reduction) are a major concern for specific treatment processes, small systems. Often, small systems may use extra professional guidance and technical chlorine just to "make sure" the water is safe, assistance in system selection, and microbiologically, only to result in higher rates of disin- adequate funding for operation and fectant by-product formation. This in turn, may increase maintenance, system operation and the risk to the community of exposure to undesirable or water quality will suffer. harmful chemicals. According to the study, an In other cases, package plants, because of their operator’s technical ability and short disinfectant contact times with water flowing availability to perform the job are through the treatment train, may not allow sufficient time crucial to successful operation of for the disinfectant to be effective. This is especially true the system. Additionally, frequency for small streams that exhibit highly variable water of and accessibility to training are quality because of storms and runoff, which require a principally responsible for change in treatment or chemical feed rates. Thus, improvement in water treatment disinfectant by-product formation may be low, but so is performance. disinfection efficiency. Because of limited revenues, • In theory, the treatment technologies utilized in very often only part-time operators package plants and small systems can provide potable can be hired by small communities water and achieve reductions in Giardia lamblia cysts with little funding available for (99.9%) and viruses (99.99%), as required by the Sur- training and certification. Small face Water Treatment Rule. However, there are little systems normally do not have a field data to verify this assumption. large pool of trained engineers and • Successful operation of surface water treatment scientists to deal with complex facilities may require a more sophisticated equipment or with constantly understanding of water chemistry and engineering changing treatment needs. In principles than was traditionally believed necessary. addition, the small system might Operators may need more advanced training than is have difficulty attracting skilled typically provided. Remote monitoring and circuit rider staff because of economic con- approaches may be especially important in effectively straints. leveraging the services of a qualified, fully capable The ORD is investigating the operator. utility of a telemetry system in which the package plant treatment systems that cannot individually system can be remotely monitored afford a trained operator. and operated. This approach, called a Supervisory Control and Data Research Activities Acquisition system, could aid in the development of an electronic Meeting Biological Standards “circuit rider” that would provide Risk service and guidance simulta- Approximately 200,000 cases neously via long distance to several per year of gastroenteritis will be

11 avoided as a result of filtration and Very Small 3,544 disinfection. 65.6% Small 1,148 21.3% Small systems have the most trouble meeting EPA’s standards for safe drinking water. Small systems Medium 357 accounted for almost 87 percent of 6.6% the 5,400 systems with maximum Large 336 contaminant level violations in 1991. 6.2% Microbial violations accounted for Very Large 15 0.3% the majority of these cases, putting 12 million people at risk. Although fatal waterborne Number of systems in violation (by system size) diseases are no longer a major public health threat in the U.S., there are Microbiological 12,000,000 still thousands of water-related pathogen-induced cases of illness, characterized by vomiting and diarrhea, reported annually. Fortunately, disinfection and Radiological 300,000 filtration processes can eliminate the Inorganics 400,000 cause of such illnesses, and the Organics 900,000 Disinfection Rule will require all systems to meet new microbiological standards. Turbidity 5,100,000 The principal immediate risk Population served by community systems in violation from drinking water contamination (by contaminant group) is still biological in origin with verified outbreaks of waterborne diseases caused by lack of proper Microorganisms called coliforms are present in water treatment facilities or a breakdown contaminated with human and animal feces. Although in such equipment. Throughout most coliforms do not usually cause disease, their presence of recorded history, human organic in drinking water indicates that disease-causing waste has posed the greatest threat to organisms may be present. If a water sample is passed safety of drinking water. Typhoid, through a filter, coliform bacteria present in the sample cholera, and other waterborne are retained and, under infectious diseases could not be fully specific test conquered until disinfection and conditions, filtration treatment processes were develop into adopted. golden sheen Treatment colonies. At a minimum, the treatment Water required to control microbiological samples that contamination must include contain coliforms are disinfection to kill disease-causing tested further organisms. The Surface Water to ensure that Treatment Rule also requires surface a water supply water systems to install some form is safe to of filtration (the process of removing drink. suspended solids that cause

12 turbidity) unless criteria for A community exemptions can be met. (Turbidity drinking water is a measure of the cloudiness of supply, serving water caused by the presence of about 25 homes, flowed to this tank suspended matter. Turbidity can be for treatment by caused by many things, including chlorination and the presence of microorganisms, aeration. Due to which can interfere with disinfec- regulatory tion effectiveness.) These treatment requirements of the technologies and standards for SDWA, as microbes, coliforms, and a amended, this jerry- requirement that all systems be rigged system was operated by qualified operators, no longer adequate expand control of disease-causing to insure a safe water supply and, microbes. thus, was recently Concern has recently replaced by an mounted over the ability of certain ultrafiltration pathogenic protozoan package plant. (Cryptosporidium) cysts to survive treatment processes and, thus, enter the distribution system. Researchers are designing and testing filtration techniques to physically remove the Example of a small community "homemade” system that cysts. Slow sand, diatomaceous provides no adequate assurance that drinking water is safe. earth, coagulation/rapid sand This drinking water supply intake structure is placed in a stream filtration, bag filtration, and bed, surrounded by mud, moss, gravel and water. membrane processes are being studied. Research Many small communities across the nation are seeking solutions to financing basic drinking water treatment. Two small communities in West Virginia, like thousands of other very small towns across the country with central systems (at least 15 service connections serving 25 people) distribute water from the only available source in the area. One town delivers untreated water from a cave; the other delivers minimally treated water from a collapsed mine shaft. Both sources are from unprotected aquifers. Escherichia coli, a bacterium indicating fecal contamination, and other microbiological contaminants were detected in both source waters

13 and in one of the distribution systems. The Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of Lake Havasu, California, distributes water from that lake to 400 people. Although raw water quality is generally good, because of intense recreational use in the summer, compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule is doubtful. A sportsman camp in Lakeville, Maine, serves five cabins and a transient population of approximately 30 people daily throughout the hunting and fishing seasons. The water supply from the lake is adversely affected by erosion from clear-cut logging within its watershed. Soil and silt buildup and Precast manholes placed in the left side of the stream serve as significant algae growth have drinking water intake structures for a very small community already damaged nearby lakes, supply. Water is distributed directly to customers via the overhead hose attached to poles. rendering them incapable of sustaining wildlife. Disinfection is a basic New ultrafiltration membrane package plant located by Lake requirement for each of these Havasu. systems. Filtration to remove suspended solids also is a requirement for the surface water source. The ORD is working with these communities to conduct research on package plant systems to see if they are capable of meeting regulatory requirements for microbiological contamination under different water source and geographic conditions. Ultrafiltration membrane package plants are installed in two of these community central systems to provide filtration plus disinfection. Data from monthly sampling of microbiological contaminants will determine the plants’ capabilities to perform throughout changes in seasonal weather and raw water quality. Other analyses will be done throughout the system for disinfection by-products and toxic chemicals.

14 Meeting Organic Chemical from industrial solvents and pesticides to cleaning preparations Standards and degreasers. When used or discarded improperly, these chemi- Risk cals pollute ground and surface Approximately 30 cancer waters used as sources of drinking deaths per year will be avoided if water. all water supplies lower vinyl Technology and operating chloride concentrations below procedures are available to prevent 0.002 mg/L. release of many contaminants or Approximately 72 cancer control them in drinking water. deaths per year will be avoided if However, costs can be substantial, all water supplies lower ethylene especially for small systems, because dibromide concentrations below they cannot benefit from economies 0.00005 mg/L. of scale. While microbiological Treatment contamination primarily produces The technologies most suitable infectious diseases, chemical for organic contaminant removal in pollutants can contribute to chronic small systems are granular activated toxicity or cancer. Drinking water carbon and aeration. The carbon pro- sources can be selected that are free cess has been designated as the best of significant microbiological available technology for synthetic contaminants or protected from organic chemical removal, and potentially harmful contaminants of packed column aeration, as best for human origin, but these same volatile organic chemicals. The waters are vulnerable to a variety of graular activated process uses carbon chemicals usually related to that has been treated to make it ex- pollution discharge or treatment. tremely porous so that it can remove Ground water in the vicinity of organic contaminants through ad- improperly designed waste disposal sorption. sites often has been found to be Aeration, also known as air heavily contaminated by migrating stripping, mixes air with water to toxic chemicals. volatilize contaminants. The Many synthetic organic contaminants are either released chemicals, compounds that contain directly to the atmosphere or are carbon, have been detected in water treated and then released. Aeration is supplies in the U.S. Some of these, used to remove volatile chemicals. such as the solvent trichloroethylene, a carcinogen (an agent that can Research incite malignant tumor growth), are Organics control has been a volatile. They easily become gases focus of drinking water research for and can be inhaled in showers or more than twenty years. The baths or while washing dishes. pioneering work contributed by ORD They can also be absorbed through to this field has provided new the skin. technologies and methodologies for More than 60,000 toxic the standard-setting process, chemicals are now being used by benefiting not only small communi- various segments of industry and ties but the entire drinking water agriculture. These substances range community.

15 source waters contaminating only a Cost of POE vs. Cost of Connecting to a Central System portion of the distribution system. Various Superfund sites as No. of Houses 2000 well as states have been employing 10 point of entry systems for several 1800 15 years in remediation programs. The predominant contaminants being 20 removed in point of entry applica- 1600 tions are chlorinated solvents, 25 petroleum products, aldicarb, 1400 50 ethylene dibromide, and radon. Treatment technologies such as 1200 100 granular activated carbon, aeration, reverse osmosis, ion exchange and 1000 ozone/ultraviolet light have been POE Cost widely adapted to treating water for 800 the entire house. The removal efficiencies provided by these Cost $/Year/Household various systems range between 86 600 and 99+ percent. Cost depends on system 400 capacity and type of contaminants being removed. For organic 200 chemical contamination in the water supply of a small community, 1000 10000 50000 granular activated carbon treatment Length of Pipe in Connection (ft.) is needed. The cost-effectiveness of a central system is in part a function of the number of households involved, total length of pipe and Cost of Point of Recent studies have been pumping required for connections, Entry Units vs. Cost comparing cost and performance of size and economics of the existing of Connecting to a small systems (point of entry and central plant, and additional Central System. centralized treatment technology) for treatment required by the central removal of organic contaminants. plant. Whole house, point of entry The figure above shows treatment units may provide an annual household costs of point of attractive alternative to centralized entry systems and those of central treatment technology, since costs for water supply as a function of the installing a new distribution system total length of pipe and components with central treatment or connecting required for connection of the to a distant water supply may be specific number of homes involved. prohibitive. Conversely, with The cost trade-offs indicate that if distribution systems in place, point the average length of new distribu- of entry is not likely to be a viable tion components required for alternative, except for the smallest connection to central supply per utility, one that is unable financially house are significantly greater than to build a new central treatment 200 feet, then point of entry may be plant, or a community with multiple a cost-effective alternative.

16 Meeting Disinfection Treatment In general, disinfection by- By-Product Standards products are difficult and costly to remove from drinking water once Risk they have been formed. It is better to Millions of people may be remove the natural organic matter exposed to trihalomethanes in their prior to disinfectant addition. drinking water at levels above 0.10 From an economic standpoint, mg/L, resulting in approximately 50 alternative disinfectants should be no cancer deaths annually. more expensive than chlorine. A wide variety of chemicals Unfortunately, since no single are added to drinking water to existing alternative disinfectant, such remove various contaminants. as ozone, chlorine dioxide, chloram- Among them are alum, iron salts, ines and ultraviolet radiation, can chlorine and other oxidizing agents, satisfy all requirements (effective, all of which may leave residues or inexpensive, and can provide a potentially hazardous by-products disinfectant residual in the distribu- in the finished water. In fact, the tion system to prevent regrowth of most common source of synthetic microorganisms), a combination of organic chemicals in treated alternative disinfectants is needed. drinking water is the interaction of Though such a strategy can be used chlorine or other disinfectants with to reduce trihalomethanes and total the naturally occurring particles halogenated organic by-product found in the water. levels, the combined use of these Chlorine, the major disinfectants will produce other disinfectant used in treatment plants disinfectant by-products. to purify water supplies, can Several strategies for minimiz- undergo complex chemical ing harmful chlorination by-products reactions when mixed with are used by small systems: contaminated water. In the 1970s, 1) Reduce the concentration of scientists at EPA discovered that organic materials before adding chlorine can react with natural and chlorine. Water clarification man-made chemicals in water to techniques, such as coagulation, create by-products known as sedimentation, and filtration, can trihalomethanes. At least one of effectively remove many organic these by-products, chloroform, is materials. Activated carbon may be carcinogenic in animals. Other used to remove organic materials at disinfectants also have been found higher concentrations or those not to generate undesirable by-products. removed by other techniques. The establishment of a maximum contaminant level for total 2) Reevaluate the amount of trihalomethanes (chloroform, chlorine used. The same degree of bromoform, bromodichloro- disinfection may be possible with methane, and dibromochloro- lower dosages. methane) will control these 3) Change the point where disinfection by-products. Future chlorine is added. If chlorine is regulation of compounds such as presently added before treatment, haloacetic acids will control instead it can be added after additional disinfection by-products. filtration, or after chemical treatment.

17 4) Use alternative disinfection metabolites, chlorite and chlorate, methods. Ozonation and ultraviolet while controlling disinfection by- radiation, the alternative methods products. Membrane treatment most practical for small systems, research is evaluating the potential cannot be used as disinfectants by role of nanofiltration and reverse themselves. Both require a secondary osmosis in removing by-product disinfectant (usually chlorine) to precursors from drinking water. maintain a residual in the distribution system. Meeting Inorganic Contaminant Standards Research Research activities include Risk studies on the maintenance of Many potential drinking water microbial quality of treated drinking contaminants are of natural origin. water while minimizing the There may be inorganic contami- formation of disinfection by- nants, such as common salts, or products. Any changes that are made trace toxic substances like radium in drinking water treatment must be and radon. Nitrates, common in made in such a way that the agricultural areas, can cause a microbial safety of drinking water is disorder in infants (“blue baby” maintained. Research studies are syndrome) that affects the ability of focusing on the use of disinfectants the bloodstream to carry oxygen. other than chlorine and removal of These health concerns are generally precursor material by enhanced associated with failure to protect conventional treatment, granular original water sources. activated carbon, and membranes for Some other inorganic controlling disinfection by-products. contaminants are from localized In Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, geologic deposits of arsenic or and Evansville, Indiana, work is in selenium. Arsenic occurs naturally progress that can be applied to small as an impurity in various minerals systems. Mutagenicity data are being and in the ores of certain commer- collected together with physical and cially mined metals. If untreated, chemical performance data to arsenic exposure can cause liver and characterize the operating parameters kidney damage. for a series of treatment processes. A Another natural contaminant pilot column system will be operated controllable with modern technology to assess seasonal variations with an is fluoride. Many communities add it overall objective of comparing the to their drinking water in regulated effects of ozonation and various amounts to improve dental health. filter media in reducing ozone by- However, excessive exposure to this products and stabilizing water. inorganic chemical, which is the Other field work focuses on seventeenth most abundant sub- an integrated ozone-bioreactor sys- stance in the earth’s crust, can cause tem with the objective of chemically/ skeletal damage, as well as a microbiologically transforming brownish discoloration of teeth. precursors to less reactive and less Treatment problematic by-products. Other Inorganic contaminants investigations focus on the use of presently regulated under the Safe chlorine dioxide in conjunction with Drinking Water Act include many a reducing agent to eliminate the metals, such as arsenic, barium,

18 cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, New Mexico, exceeded federal and nickel; other elements, such as drinking water standards for both asbestos and fluoride; and radionu- arsenic and fluoride. This community clides. Conventional treatment, with 200 residents and 80 homes coagulation/filtration (initial receives water of poor quality from treatment that converts ground water sources and has nonsettleable to settleable particles), difficulty in providing central can be used to remove some treatment. The water supply contains inorganics. Additional technologies naturally occurring arsenic, fluoride, focus on specific contaminants. and a high level of total dissolved Separation processes, reverse solids. osmosis and electrodialysis, use a Researchers embarked upon a semipermeable membrane that two-year study in 1988 to help the permits only water, and not community achieve compliance and dissolved ions (atoms that have an evaluate removal efficiency, cost, electrical charge because they have and management effectiveness. An gained or lost electrons), such as initial nine-month research study sodium and chloride, to pass with the Mobile Drinking Water through its pores. With reverse Treatment Research Facility osmosis, contaminated water is determined that the most cost- subjected to a high pressure that effective means of removing arsenic forces pure water through the and fluoride from the water would be membrane, leaving most contami- with home treatment point of use nants behind in a brine solution. reverse osmosis units. The electrodialysis process employs The eighty under-the-sink electrical current to attract ions to units installed in homes lowered one side of a treatment chamber. levels of arsenic, fluoride, total This process is effective in dissolved solids, chloride, iron, and removing fluoride and nitrate, and manganese to well below the federal can also remove barium, cadmium, standards. The cost to the customer selenium, radium, and other for point of use treatment was less inorganics. than half the estimated cost of Ion exchange units can be proposed central treatment. To assist used to remove many ionic customer responsiveness to new (charged) substances from water. treatment units, special ordinances Ion exchange works by exchanging were issued by the utility to address charged ions in the water for ions of customer and water utility responsi- similar charge on an exchange bilities and liability issues, and to medium, usually a synthetic resin. require that the unit be installed in In cation (a positively charged ion) homes obtaining water from the exchange, the ions most often utility. displaced from the resin are sodium To assist small communities ions. For anion (a negatively with water supplies that exceed the charged ion) exchange, the ion maximum contaminant levels for exchanged is usually chloride. arsenic, ORD conducted a demon- Research stration project in four homes in Arsenic Removal Alaska and Oregon to evaluate point Water supply for the small of use systems. These homes were rural community of San Ysidro, supplied by private wells with water

19 containing naturally occurring a half year study at a 1-million arsenic in concentrations ranging gallon per day plant in McFarland, from 0.1 to 1.0 mg/L. The current California, in 1985. The plant treats standard for arsenic is 0.05 mg/L. close to 700 gallons of ground water The pilot systems consisted of per minute. Data showed that the an activated alumina tank, an anion facility reduced nitrate levels to well exchange tank, and a reverse below the maximum contaminant osmosis system. Both point of use level of 10 mg/L. Researchers also and point of entry systems were found that if the well was continu- used. Results showed that all three ously pumped, the need for nitrate treatment techniques effectively treatment decreased. Maximum lowered arsenic concentrations in automation was used successfully water. The ion exchange units were with minimum staffing, which is able to treat water containing as typical for a small water system much as 1.16 mg arsenic/L. operation. Additional research is Additional research is needed to needed to verify the concepts verify the results from the earlier established during this study and study and to further define the cost should focus on alternative brine and performance characteristics of disposal techniques, as well as the these units. concept of operating small treatment plants on an automated basis. Nitrate Removal An extensive study was sponsored by ORD in 1985 in Meeting Radionuclide Glendale, Arizona, where 10 of 31 Standards drinking water wells had been shut down due to excessive nitrates. The Risk water supply, containing 18 to 25 Radionuclides, which are mg/L of nitrate, was reduced to 7 known human carcinogens, exist in mg/L in a 1-million-gallon per day water supplies serving as many as plant, well below the existing 100 million people. maximum contaminant level of 10 Radionuclides found in mg/L. drinking water are members of three This project (using the Mobile radioactive series, uranium, thorium, Drinking Water Treatment Research and actinium and include the Facility for initial work) tested the naturally occurring elements radium, feasibility and provided cost data for uranium, and the radioactive gas, three nitrate removal technologies: radon. These radionuclides are found reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, and in drinking water supplies through- ion exchange. Comparative costs for out the U.S., but certain geographic producing 1,000 gallons of treated areas have particularly high levels. water in the 1-million gallon per day Different types of ionizing plant were 30 cents for ion exchange, radiation emitted by these contami- 85 cents for electrodialysis, and one nants may cause different levels of dollar for reverse osmosis. biological damage. Radium, when To obtain detailed information ingested, concentrates in bone and on design, operation, performance, can cause cancers. Ingested uranium and cost for removing nitrate by ion can cause cancers in bone and can exchange, ORD sponsored a two and have a toxic effect on kidneys.

20 EPA Mobile Drinking Water Treatment Research Facility For over a decade, EPA’s Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory has sponsored the operation of a transportable, reusable, pilot-plant facility for inorganic contaminant removal. This pilot plant is particularly applicable to the diverse inorganic contamination problems in small communities. The plant is housed in a 10- x 40-ft. trailer that can be transported to a site to study treatment technologies applicable to a given contaminant removal problem. An estimated several thousand public water supplies in small communities in the U.S. contain inorganics that can be removed by advanced water treatment processes, such as packed beds of activated alumina, ion exchange resins, or by separation using reverse osmosis or electrodialysis. Where reliable design criteria and economical operating procedures are not available for the selection, cost-effective application, and safe operation of these processes, the mobile facility, built and operated by the University of Houston, can be transported to a site for water treatment process research and analysis.

Radon, a colorless, odorless, pCi/L (picocuries per liter), 20 pCi/L, tasteless gas, poses unique and 20 µg/L (micrograms per liter), problems. The gas, a decay product respectively. Picocuries per liter is a of uranium deposits, enters homes measure of the concentration of a dissolved in drinking water; radioactive substance. A level of 1 however, when the water is heated pCi/L means that approximately two or agitated in a shower or washing atoms of the radionuclide are machine, it becomes a breathable disintegrating per minute in every drinking water contaminant that liter of water. may, in the opinion of scientists, greatly increase the risk of lung Treatment cancer. Removal of radon-222, Today’s treatment techniques radium-226 and -228 and uranium, also are effective against radionu- all of which are carcinogenic, are in clides. Reverse osmosis is effective the proposal stage for regulation by for treating several radioactive the Safe Drinking Water Act at 300 contaminants in drinking water. Ion

21 exchange can be used to remove water characteristics. The general radium and uranium. Radon removal cost and performance of these unit requires use of granular activated processes also must be verified. carbon or aeration techniques. Each Radon Removal of the treatment processes for Aeration and granular removing radionuclides from activated carbon treatment to remove drinking water generates waste that radon have been demonstrated must be handled and disposed with extensively as highly effective care. (greater than 90 percent removal) and reliable. ORD participated in a Research study to analyze a large body of Uranium Removal performance data to determine the Uranium-contaminated effectiveness of home treatment drinking water is a common units to remove radon from drinking problem, particularly in the western water. Point of entry granular U.S. Approximately 100 to 200 activated carbon units were installed community water supplies treat their at 122 sites in 12 states by Lowry et water to reduce uranium levels to al. to treat ground water supplies concentrations that meet federal with varying quality characteristics. regulations. The treatment units were Removal of uranium from single vessels containing 1 to 3 cubic ground water supplies in New feet of granular activated carbon. Mexico and Colorado was demon- Most units were installed down- strated in studies by ORD to both stream of an existing pressure tank reduce levels that were 20 times the and were operated under existing proposed maximum contaminant water pressure in the home. In level and to determine operating general, the only maintenance characteristics, costs and uranium required was twice-yearly replace- treatment waste disposal options. ment or washing of the sediment Four ion exchange columns, housing filter. Researchers concluded that a three different types of resins, were typical point of entry granular pilot-tested in New Mexico and a activated carbon unit may last a full-scale ion exchange system was decade. evaluated in Colorado. Researchers also have Results showed that anion demonstrated that low cost/low exchange can remove more than 99 technology aeration techniques can percent of the uranium present in be applied easily in small communi- raw water at reasonable cost. ties to significantly lower radon Disposal of uranium-laden wastewa- concentrations in drinking water. At ter was a complex task because of a 33-home trailer park in New the sophisticated sample analyses Hampshire, removal of 60 to 87 required. Operation and maintenance percent was achieved with simple costs for such removal systems will aeration and by retaining water in a be high. The removal efficiency of storage holding tank for nine hours these units is very much a function to allow for decay of radon. Better of the source water matrix. Addi- than 95 percent removal was tional research is needed to define observed by increasing retention the removal characteristics of these time to 30 hours, also with aeration unit processes as a function of source applied.

22 pCi/L 0.00 - 1.99 2.00 - 4.99 5.00 - 9.99 10.00 - 19.99 _> 20.00

To compare three types of Radium Removal Average total point of entry treatment systems for More than 175 cities in the uranium concentra- removal of radon, researchers Midwest deliver drinking water that tions in public evaluated granular activated carbon contains radium in concentrations ground water (with and without ion exchange that exceed proposed federal supplies. pretreatment) and two types of standards. To assist small communi- aeration devices, diffused bubble ties with compliance, ORD investi- and bubble plate. The granular gated several treatment methods to activated carbon unit proved to be remove radium economically from the easiest to operate and maintain drinking water. and the least expensive. Radon A study in Iowa evaluated concentrations were always possible economical ways to remove reduced, but not necessarily at the radium from drinking water by same rates. Waste from the system typical iron removal plants. The may require special handling and study found that sorption of radium disposal. The aeration systems were to manganese oxides could possibly very efficient in removing radon; be exploited to remove radium, and however, they were more suscep- that filter sand was able to sorb tible to operational problems. significant concentrations of radium Comparative studies are needed to at typical hardness concentrations, if further define the most efficient the sand is periodically rinsed with a type of unit process for proposed dilute acid. maximum contaminant levels and Researchers, over a two-year under various source water period, also evaluated a system to conditions. remove radium from ion exchange

23 pCi/L 0.00 - 99.99 100.00 - 199.99 200.00 - 499.99 500.00 - 999.99 _> 1000.00

Average radon-222 waste at a small water treatment removal was 14,200 pCi/g MnO2 (Rn-222) concentra- facility in Redhill Forest, Colorado, before the maximum contaminant tions in public where raw water comes from deep level was exceeded. For softer water ground water wells and contains naturally (pH=4.5), total radium removal was supplies. occurring radium, radon and iron. 5,000 pCi/g MnO2 before the The treatment system consisted of maximum contaminant level was aeration to remove radon gas and exceeded. The filters also can carbon dioxide, chemical clarifica- remove low concentrations of tion to remove iron and manganese, cadmium, calcium, cobalt, cesium, and ion exchange to remove radium iron, and manganese. Future work in and reduce “hardness” or pH level. A this area is needed to define cost- separate system removed only effective treatment technologies for radium from the regeneration water removing radium with special (brine) of the ion exchange process emphasis on residual disposal. by permanently complexing it on a radium selective complexer resin. Meeting Corrosion This treatment was found to be very By-Product Standards efficient in the removal of radium Risk from the ion exchange process Millions of people may be wastewater. exposed to lead, resulting in Full-scale application of potential risk of central and

radium adsorption onto MnO2-coated peripheral nervous system damage, filters was tested at several small particularly to infants and fetuses. public water systems in North Exposure to excessive levels Carolina. The filter tests showed that of lead and copper in drinking water for hard water (pH=7.4), total radium is primarily caused by corrosion

24 pCi/L 0.00 - 0.49 0.50 - 0.99 1.00 - 1.99 2.00 - 4.99 >_ 5.00

resulting from the contact of the water is not moving, generally Average radium- corrosive water with these materials overnight or other times when the 226 (Ra-226) found throughout water distribution water supply is not used for several concentrations in systems and in the plumbing of hours at a time. The first water that public ground water private homes. Of particular comes from the faucet after long supplies. concern is the presence of lead periods of no use may have lead in it. service lines and connections, lead Future use of lead pipe and lead pipes in the home, and lead solder solder has been banned. New that is less than five years old. In standards for lead and copper will 1986, EPA estimated that as many require treatment of water to inhibit as 42 million people in the U.S. corrosion and the leaching of lead may be exposed to water lead levels from the distribution system. in excess of 20 µg/L. In homes less In many areas of the U.S., than five years old that contain lead homeowners and small water supply solder, it is not uncommon to find systems use water that is potentially water lead levels in excess of 100 corrosive to metallic materials µg/L. The most cost effective way (copper, lead, and zinc) in the to prevent lead and copper distribution system. Corrosion can corrosion by-products and reduce be caused by the use of minimally the risks posed to human health and acidic waters (low pH or alkalinity) the environment is through and concentrations of dissolved comprehensive corrosion reduction solids. Health problems can result carried out by water suppliers. from ingestion of corrosion by- Where lead is present in products, aesthetic quality of the pipes and soldered connections, the water can decline, and costs due to lead dissolves into the water while piping system deterioration may rise.

25 responsible for the uptake of lead and copper in drinking water; developing chemically-sound and practical treatment strategies for lead and copper control that are applicable to water systems of all sizes; determining potential adverse side effects on other materials and potential users; and demonstrating the effectiveness of different treatment processes. To control corrosion in small systems using minimally acidic water, ORD sponsored research to derive and test a model for limestone contactor design, examine the relationship between contactor- treated water quality and metal release from pipes, and monitor the field performance of full-scale contactors. Results indicated that limestone contactors can effectively reduce the tendency of water to take up corrosion by-products from surfaces in piping systems. Pilot studies are being conducted at the Cincinnati Lab to test the effects of different major water chemistry variables on lead pipe and other plumbing materials. Corrosion has Treatment caused severe Lead levels in drinking water Studies will determine potential blockage in an 8- are managed indirectly through inhibitors and mechanisms of lead inch water main corrosion controls. Lead is not and copper corrosion protection in pipe. The reddish typically found in source water, but actual pipe systems, and integrate coloration is rust rather at the consumer’s tap as a this information into a predictive that has built up result of the corrosion of the theory of leaching control. Basic over time and now investigations will be conducted on acts to harbor plumbing or distribution system. If tests for corrosion by-products find the equilibria of solubility and bacteria in the transport and the effect of pH, distribution system. unacceptably high levels of lead, immediate steps should be taken to carbonate, ortho and polyphosphate, minimize consumers’ exposure until and temperature on fundamental a long-term corrosion control plan is chemical constants. implemented. Other studies will focus on the extent of corrosion and remediation Research strategies for a range of water To control the input of lead qualities and problems. Designs of and copper into drinking water, the treatment systems will be developed research program is determining the that require little operator attention water chemistry and physical factors and that provide consistent water

26 quality and corrosion control for eliminating many of the problems Rust is indicative of small suppliers. Additional small systems face when attempting corrosion in a small investigation will be conducted on to finance and operate central drinking water the mechanism and control of lead treatment facilities. distribution system built in1935 that has leaching from brass and solder. Currently, several states are not been well enacting legislation to require maintained. Summary certification of treatment units, certification of water quality for When evaluating treatment home loans, and tougher “truth in options and alternatives for small advertising” requirements for water systems and private homeowners, treatment units. Several states are decision-makers will have to also making it easier to acquire funds consider the potentially very high for treatment technology installation cost for custom designed central and upgrades and for the creation of treatment and its long-term water quality districts to address the operation and maintenance versus problems of small systems and rural maintenance and monitoring of homeowners. package plants or home treatment The President’s budget for units. Package plants or point of fiscal year 1994 includes resources to entry units may present a cost- help meet state and local needs in effective solution for small systems protecting the nation’s drinking and individual homeowners, water. Close to six hundred million

27 A schematic of a point of entry unit for disinfection by ozone and ultraviolet light. The unit receives raw water at right, which travels through a prefilter, ozone generator, ultraviolet light, contact chamber, and polishing step (optional) to produce the finished water (outlet at left).

dollars will be invested by EPA in a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to provide low-interest loans to communities for the repair and improvement of existing systems. Documentation of increasing contamination of the nation’s ground water is abundant. Small systems and private homeowners have been and will continue to be the most vulnerable and least capable of meeting current and future drinking water regulations. However, long- term cost-competitive alternatives are becoming available in terms of package plants and home treatment units to reduce the risk of contaminated drinking water.

28 References

Campbell, S., Lykins, Jr., B.W., and Goodrich, J.A. Financing Assistance Available for Small Public Water Systems. JAWWA, 85:6:47, June 1993. Clifford, D. and Bilimoria, M. Project Summary: A Mobile Drinking Water Treatment Research Facility for Inorganic Contaminants Removal: Design, Construction, and Operation, U.S. EPA, MERL, Cincinnati, OH, (EPA-600/S2-84-018), March 1984. Cothern, C. R., and Rebers, P. A. Radon, Radium and Uranium in Drinking Water, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan, 1990. Goodrich, J.A., Stevens, T., Walsh, C. Small Systems Meet Superfund Challenge with Point-of Entry Treatment Units. Proceedings, Hazardous Materials Control/Superfund ’91, Washington D.C., December 3-5, 1991. Goodrich, J. A., Adams, J. Q., Lykins, B.W., Jr., and Clark, R. M. Safe Drinking Water from Small Sys- tems: Treatment Options. JAWWA, 84:4-55, May 1992. Lowry, J.D., Lowry, S.B., and Cline, J.K. Radon Removal by POE GAC Systems: Design, Performance, and Cost. U.S. EPA, RREL, Cincinnati, OH, (EPA/600/2-90/049), January 1991. Lykins, B.W., Jr., Clark, R.M. and Goodrich, J.A. Point-of-Use/Point-of-Entry for Drinking Water Treat- ment, Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Inc., Chelsea, MI, 1992. Parrotta, M.J. Radioactivity in Water Treatment Wastes: A USEPA Perspective, JAWWA, April 1991. Sorg, T. Process Selection for Small Drinkihg Water Supplies, Proceedings, 23rd Annual Public Water Supply Engineers’ Conference, University of Illinois, April 21-23, 1981. Symons, J. M. “Plain Talk About Drinking Water,” American Water Works Association, 1992. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Manual of Treatment Techniques for Meeting the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, ORD, MERL, Cincinnati, OH (EPA-600/8-77/005), April 1978. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nationwide Occurrence of Radon and Other Natural Radioactivity in Public Water Supplies, Office of Radiation Programs (EPA 520/5-85-008), 1985. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Pollution Control Alternatives: Drinking Water Treatment for Small Communities, ORD, CERI, Cincinnati, OH (EPA/625/5-90/025), 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and American Water Works Association. Package Water Treat- ment Plant Operation and Field Data. Vol. 1, Draft, June 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Public Water System Supervision Program: FY 1991 Compliance Report, Office of Water, March 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center Small Systems Resource Directory (EPA/600/R-92/098), ORD, Cincinnati, OH, March 1992.

29 Sources of Information Federal Funding Programs for Small Public Water Systems

Appalachian Regional Commission (202) 673-7874 Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (202) 708-2690 Community Development Block Grants Economic Development Administration (202) 482-5113 Indian Health Service (301) 443-1083 Rural Development Administration (202) 720-9589 (formerly Farmer’s Home Administration)

Technical and Administrative Support for Small Public Water Systems

American Water Works Association (800) 366-0107 National Rural Water Association (405) 252-0629 Rural Community Assistance Program (703) 771-8636 Rural Electrification Administration (202) 720-9540 (private; provides some financial funding) Rural Information Center (800) 633-7701 National Drinking Water Clearinghouse (800) 624-8301 USEPA, A. W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Robert M. Clark (513) 569-7201

Copies of this and other ORD publications are available from EPA’s Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI). Once the CERI inventory is exhausted, clients will be directed to the National Technical Information Service where documents may be purchased.

Center for Environmental Research Information U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive Cincinnati, OH 45268 Phone: (513) 569-7562 FAX: (513) 569-7566

30 The research described in this report was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and conducted as part of the Office of Research and Development’s comprehensive long-term Research Issue Plan for Drinking Water.

This publication was prepared by Carol Grove of ORD’s Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI), Cincinnati, Ohio, under the Office of Science, Planning and Regulatory Evaluation. It was prepared from information developed by Jim Goodrich and staff of the Drinking Water Research Division, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), Cincinnati. Other contributors and reviewers include Robert Clark, Tom Sorg, Ben Lykins, Walter Feige, Kim Fox, and Sue Campbell, RREL - Cincinnati; Rita Shoeny, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office - Cincinnati; Ronnie Levin, Office of Science, Planning and Regulatory Evaluation; and Peter Shanaghan, Office of Water.

Thanks to Jim Goodrich, Sue Campbell, and Ed Geldreich of RREL and Jim Walasek, Office of Water, Technical Support Division, for photographic support and to Steve Wilson, CERI, for graphics support.

31 32